Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

January 23

Kutlehar State

Can anybody share more facts and figures of wars fought by the state from 1337-1803? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.77.53.84 (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you didn’t get a reply. Can you suggest any other search terms we might use? All I found for Kutlehar was a list of royal names, and even Kangra just brings up passing mentions in books like History of the Punjab Hill States, India’s Princely States and Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Taoist quote source

I read The Essential Tao by Thomas F. Cleary and it was great. But I'm looking for info about a specific Taoist master he quotes, Fu-kuei-tzu.

I cannot find anything about this person online, so I'm curious if they're a legendary figure or real. GoutComplex (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Wade-Giles type transcription. You may have better luck searching the web if you can find the Pinyin equivalent. AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a work or app that can facilitate transcriptions between the various Romanisation schemes? As a small boy in Hong Kong I was exposed to Wade-Giles (I think; or possibly Yale; or both), and though I have forgotton 99.5% of the 'Cantonese' I learned, I still find other romanizations harder to grasp. At least I don't fall into the trap of thinking that Pinyin letters always have the same value as in Western languages. "Bay Jing" indeed! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.212.198 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the most recent edition at hand, but The Chicago Manual of Style used to include a table of Wade-Giles–pinyin equivalents. Something similar can be seen in Pinyin#Comparison with other orthographies. Deor (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is relevant, but fu-kuei is a possible transcription of 復歸 (fùguī, "return"), mentioned in the article Fan (Daoism), and tzu is a common transcription (as in Lao Tzu) of 子. Another candidate for the first two bits is 富貴 (fùguì, "wealthy, respectable, splendid"). Yet another possibility: 福貴 (fúguì), seen in some names. --Lambiam 11:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But I still can't find it. The source was written by an academic, so I assume the texts he quotes are unreleased and sitting at a university. Or just in book form still and not converted to digital. GoutComplex (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

An "economist"?

Around several months ago, I came across a discussion regarding whether or not an article of a male official who used to work in the Obama administration should describe him as an economist just because most of the reliable sources say so regardless of his actual educational qualification. The question of whether or not Elon Musk is an engineer also got brought up. I forgot whom this discussion was referring to and I routinely deleted my browsing history. Who might this be? StellarHalo (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Bernstein has a BA in music and a PhD in Social Welfare. Does the latter count as an educational qualification in economics? In any case Paul Krugman called him an excellent candidate for serving on Obama's economics advisory board.^[1] Gene Sperling's academic education was in law (JD), after which he "attended" Wharton Business School,^[2] which sounds to me as implying he did not graduate. John G. Walsh has a Masters in Public Policy, for which the curriculum will have included Macroeconomics 101. --Lambiam 10:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian May's highest academic qualifications is in astrophysics, and he has no formal training as a musician. Are we allowed to refer to him as a guitarist or a musician even though he has no degree from a music program? --Jayron 32 13:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP didn't suggest a preference one way or another; they just wanted to ID the person who was being discussed. Matt Deres (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jared Bernstein is about little else than whether he should or should not be called an economist. See also this edit, later reverted. --Lambiam 07:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A person can be called an "X" if reliable sources call a person an "X". It is not more complicated than that. If reliable sources should not call such a person an "X", then what people need to do is petition all of those sources to write retractions to fix their errors. Short of that, Wikipedia is bound to reflect what reliable sources say about a person, and not what randos who show up at Wikipedia articles have to say about them. --Jayron 32 14:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would really like everything you said above to be the official guideline and policy at least for biography articles. StellarHalo (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It basically is. See WP:BLP, to wit "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." --Jayron 32 14:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence you quoted is about keeping stuff in, not leaving it out. It doesn't say what to do when someone wants to remove well-sourced material, like describing someone as an economist. In fact Wikipedia's BLP's of figures like Bernstein are mostly useless because so much is left out. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US casualties in the Pacific War

Why even in Western sources data on US losses in the Pacific War are so different. Now in an article about the Pacific War they write an underestimated number of 90 thousand, some sources on Wikipedia even talk about 300 thousand dead and dead, which seems overestimated. After all, the total loss of the United States in World War II is 407 thousand dead, while in the war with Germany on all fronts 185 thousand dead. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, if we're going to answer your question, we're going to have to read the actual articles you are reading. Please provide us links to the articles where you found this information so we can better answer your questions. --Jayron 32 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About 300 thousand killed Americans answered me here. And about 90 thousand, these are the numbers in the article about the Pacific War. As for the figure of 185 thousand killed in the war with Germany, I calculated this from articles about the Western, North African and Italian fronts Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

300,000 dead Americans came here, to Wikipedia, and told you they died? What on earth are you on about? Show us where you read these numbers. Give us links to the articles so we can read them ourselves, or we cannot answer you... --Jayron 32 18:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I've got it. From Pacific War, note 3 and ref 19, you're seeing ~300k casualties and ~90k deaths. These two things are not the same; casualties includes woundings, captures, and other events that render someone unavailable for duty, in addition to deaths. As with many questions of numbers, rankings, statistics, and the like, context and nuance matters. As Jayron notes, any further need for clarification should be accompanied by the specific numbers you're looking to compare and their sources. (edit to add: you may also be interested in World_War_II_casualties both for the high-level summary of why casualty quantification is difficult and for the by-nation endnotes summarizing the data, such as for the US) — Lomn 14:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British losses in World War II

What was the bloodiest front for Britain during World War II? Just confusion in numbers, according to the wiki articles, the British lost: 35 thousand killed in Africa, 24 thousand in Italy, 41 thousand on the Western Front, 86 thousand on the Pacific Front, and a maximum of 70 thousand in the Atlantic. But where did "another 130 thousand corpses" go if the UK lost a total of 384 thousand people? Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. If we're going to answer your question, you first need to provide us with links so we can read the same text you are reading where those numbers appear. --Jayron 32 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Western Front (World War II)

Italian campaign (World War II)

North African campaign

Pacific War Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, in the first article, I don't see anywhere that has "41 thousand" British soldiers dead. I ctrl-F for 41, and saw nothing at all with that figure. I did the same ofr "24" in the Italian Campaign article, and "86" on the Pacific War article and so on. It doesn't look like you read those numbers in those articles; they just aren't there. You still haven't told us where you got your numbers from. --Jayron 32 18:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Western Front, 11 thousand British died in 1940-1941 and 30 thousand in 1944-1945 according to the result of "41", about the Italian and Pacific fronts, yes, I was a little mistaken: 18 thousand in Italian and 82 thousand in the Pacific. Anonymous said about 300 thousand in this directory. I'm more interested in US casualties in the Pacific. Since the article about the Pacific War takes into account only combat losses. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The data appears to come from The World War II Databook, by John Ellis. Here it is. You should probably look at that book if you want a more complete image of the data in question. --Jayron 32 12:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, missing from your list so far are the Battle of Britain, The Blitz, the German invasion of Greece, the Syria–Lebanon campaign, the Italian invasion of British Somaliland; I don't know if the Arctic convoys of World War II are counted to your Battle of the Atlantic figures. Certainly there are more theaters missing yet. --KnightMove (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original volumes collated in "The English Reports"

I recently built s:Portal:The_English_Reports over on Wikisource, but was wanting some help from other contributors here, in adding links to the original works, which were collated into "The English Reports".

Do any of the contributors here know of of online sources (Hathi/Google Books/IA) for the missing volumes, and for the original Reports published prior to the compiling of the English Reports in 1866 or so?

It would be convenient if contributors that can match up the abbreviations with original scans, could assist in updating the portal at Wikisource. Thanks in advance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this the same as English Reports? At the bottom of that article, there is a link to the full text at http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/ I'm not sure how to match that to your request as it looks fairly complete but is organized by year instead of by volume like your list. Can you perhaps explain further which pieces you'd like help finding, if this isn't what you need? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

Trillion dollar coin

from the article "In January 2023, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen saidthat minting a trillion dollar coin was not on the table as a solution to the 2023 United States debt-ceiling crisis and possible U.S. default on its debt, because the Federal Reserve would be unlikely to accept it." Question: If Yellen is right (is she?), why does Federal Reserve have the right to refuse acceptance of the coin? Rich (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fed has statutory independence from the US government, and is empowered to make decisions that maintain a positive U.S. economy. I doubt that you'd find a specific law, rule, or regulation written down that says "The Fed must accept a trillion dollar coin from the U.S. government as payment", however, given their independence and mission, and the likely absolute disaster such a transaction would have on the U.S. economy, then no, they would not accede to such a silly political stunt. As noted at the Wikipedia article Federal Reserve and quoting their own statement on the matter "the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or by anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."" (bold mine). Clearly, whether or not to accept such a coin as payment qualifies as a "monetary policy decision". --Jayron 32 12:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if the head of the Fed had that trillion-dollar coin in his pocket and absent-mindedly put it into a vending machine to get a Twix bar or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the basis for a good cartoon, or even a live-action farcical comedy. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.208.82 (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) [reply]

<<-: Rich (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vending machine would most likely just spit it back out since it probably wouldn't recognize it as a valid coin. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my cartoon it would spit out a trillion Twix bars. --Lambiam 12:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nah… just one Twix bar and $999,999,999,998.50 in change Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would the people currently on the Fed consider it a disastrous for the economy, or is that your opinion? Would they consider it a silly stunt, as silly as refusing to raise the debt limit? Rich (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Yellen served as Chair of the Federal Reserve. I would say she would know better than anyone. If she said that the Fed could refuse to accept such a coin, then she's as right on that as anyone in the world. If you believe she is wrong about that, you need to take it up with her, and not me. --Jayron 32 14:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you're not the only volunteer at the reference desk.Rich (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not, but I doubt any one else frequenting this page is a Fed Chair, or even a board member. Willing to be proven wrong (Hey Alan, if you're out there reading this! Welcome!), but I doubt I am on that. --Jayron 32 15:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A rapid superficial rationalization based on reading Wikipedia is showing conflicting circumstances, considering at least the current state of the economy. See Trillion-dollar_coin#Inflation risks. --Askedonty (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

31 U.S. Code § 5103 states that United States coins are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.^[3] This seems to imply that all debts for which the lender would seek relief in a US court in case of the US defaulting can be settled with newly minted money. --Lambiam 16:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While true, guess who gets to decide the Monetary policy of the United States, including the "policies related to the minting & printing of money"? I'll give you a hint, Janet Yellen used to be the chair of that organization. So while yes, the U.S. code does say that official United States coins are legal tender for paying off such debts, the Fed is in charge of deciding to mint such a coin in the first place. So we're back to square 1. Yellen is an authoritative source on what the Fed will and won't do with regards to U.S. monetary policy, and when she speaks on such matters, she can be trusted to know what she's talking about. Certainly more than me. If she says "It truly is not by any means to be taken as a given that the Fed would do it, and I think especially with something that's a gimmick...The Fed is not required to accept it, there's no requirement on the part of the Fed. It's up to them what to do"[4] I think we can trust her stance as authoritative on the matter. --Jayron 32 16:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "who" that gets to decide is ultimately congress and/or the executive. The Fed was created by Congress, and as Alan Greenspan once said in testimony to it, remains the fiscal agent of the Treasury. Central Bank "independence" is basically just a very successful illusion and scam. In the ridiculous situation of Congress refusing to raise the debt limit, the arguments are very strong that the President has a constitutional responsibility to prevent default, which the 5th and 14th amendments and judicial precedents entirely oppose. But today's US government is incredibly irresponsible in all its branches, including the fictional fourth branch of the Fed. Yellen's statement should be considered in that regard. Her stance is not authoritative. Refusal leading to default is the disastrous stunt, not acceptance once the executive has decided to follow that course. I do not think that a reasonably neutral court or any body looking at the law and past practice would consider the Fed to have the power to refuse. I do not know whether such courts, especially at the top, still exist in the USA.John Z (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the 5th amendment involved? i thought that was basically a person can refuse to incriminate themself.Rich (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that has to do with monetary policy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that one could interpret the Takings Clause—nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation—as requiring the government not to default on its domestic loans. If the government defaulted on such loans, it would in a sense be [taking] private property (the money loaned to the government) without just compensation (repayment of the loan with interest). I don't know if this interpretation has been adopted by the courts. Shells-shells (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has to do with Eminent domain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ultimately Congress holds the authority to pass laws to do whatever it wants. It can abolish the Fed, compel it to to its bidding, etc. etc. However, absent additional direction in the form of Congress passing laws, the Fed is treated as an independent agency that has the power to act on its own to set U.S. monetary policy free from interference from the rest of the Government. There is, of course, an element of realpolitik here, and it's foolish to think that everything that is supposed to happen on paper does so as it is written. However, at the same time, Yellen and others in the Fed do speak authoritatively about what the Fed will/won't or can/cannot do. If anyone has something authoritative to say on the matter, it's the people doing the actual job. The trillion dollar coin trick is not particularly taken seriously be Yellen because she knows it's a silly idea. Fiscal policy (taxing and spending) is not the Fed's problem anyways. What Greenspan is really talking about is not monetary policy, it is fiscal policy. Running up debt, or paying it down, is a Congressional matter, and that's what Greenspan is saying. The Fed's job is to manage money supply, not tell Congress how to spend its tax revenue. --Jayron 32 19:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth is relevant because it prohibits taking private property. There's a long line of precedents on the inviolability of the public debt, going back to John Marshall before the 14th Amendment. Doesn't mention the Big Coin, but Robert Hockett's Stop the Charade: The Federal Budget Is Its Own ‘Debt-Ceiling’ is good background. The point is that Congress is issuing contradictory commands to the Executive. Especially with the US Constitution on his side, as it would be, the President has great power to order the Treasury and the Fed what to do. That can include the Big Coin, for which Congress in its infinite wisdom has already provided authorizing legislation. My faded recollection is that that or other legislation provides that the Fed MUST accept it, besides.John Z (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Let's see whose stance on the legitimacy of the trillion dollar coin should we believe. On the one hand, we have John Z, an anonymized Wikipedia user, whose stance on the matter is supported by, let's check my notes here... "faded recollection". On the other side of the discussion, we have Janet Yellen, who worked for the Fed starting in 1977-1978, spent the next decade and a half as a working research economist at several prestigious universities, served on the Fed Board of Governors for three more years, was CEO of the Fed Res Bank of San Francisco for 3 years, and returned to the Board of Governors, first as vice chair for four years and then as chair for four years. Tough call. Decades of experience working for the Federal Reserve at all levels. Faded recollection. Lets call it a coin flip. No way to tell who to trust here. --Jayron 32 00:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What denomination coin shall we flip? Hayttom (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yellen isn't a lawyer. I quoted one, not on the coin, but on relevant legal background. Plenty of people, academics, former Treasury officials with qualifications that add up to more than Yellen's that disagree with her. I really doubt that she herself would say her opinion is authoritative.John Z (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Mint is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury and as such is not under the control of the Federal Reserve. Associated with the Mint is a Public Enterprise Fund. 31 U.S. Code § 5136 provides that the Federal Reserve must provide receipts to the Fund for the sale of coins;^[5] paying off a debt should qualify as a sale. --Lambiam 23:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mint, as part of the Treasury, is responsible for actually making the coins, like the physical process. But who authorizes the Mint to make any specific number of coins? Which is to say, who is allowed to place the order at the Mint to fire up the coin presses, and who controls which and how many coins are made? ""The job of actually printing the money that people withdraw from ATMs and banks belongs to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), which designs and manufactures all paper money in the U.S. (The U.S. Mint produces all coins.) However, the amount of currency printed by the BEP each year is determined by the Fed," So, in order to make any putative, legal tender, "trillion dollar coin", the Fed would have to make the decision to order such a coin to be made, under currently existing processes. The Treasury only gets to produce currency if the Fed asks them to. They aren't under any authorization to "free lance" and just start making currency all on their own. Under current policy (and yes, I know, Congress can pass new laws, yada yada yada), this still has to go through the Fed, who has the final say on currency in the U.S. Janet Yellen (who I still have to keep reminding everyone, was an actual chair of the Fed, and should be expected to know her shit in this regard) is likely the most authoritative source on what the Fed will or can do in these situations, and she, knowing the operation of and the policies about, these matters, is to be trusted on this. Still. Randos on the internet cherrypicking policy to support their pet theories are less reliable than an actual Fed chair on these matters. --Jayron 32 00:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you say the Platinum coin would be disastrous for the economy of the United States? Thanks, Rich107.3.112.138 (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinion on the matter; lacking the expertise to have one. Yellen is against the idea, and I'm just following her lead, being the one who knows more about these issues. If you want to know why she thinks it's a bad idea, ask her. --Jayron 32 12:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yellen's statement is that she doubts the Fed would accept the coin if the Treasury were to deposit it at the Fed to draw its value. The US is not in debt with the Federal Reserve. While I'm not saying it is a good idea, I think that (at least formally) debts can be settled by paying with (high-valued) coins that are legal tender, obviously in lower denominations than 1G$. --Lambiam 12:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yellen did not mention a potential negative effect on the US economy, and one can question if the worst could be nearly as bad as the cascade of effects caused by the US actually defaulting on its debts. A value totaling about 1T$ being deposited in commercial banks will increase the M2 money supply by about 5%, and while this may have some inflationary effect, it will not cause run-away inflation: the economic effect should be essentially the same as if the debt ceiling had been timely raised. --Lambiam 19:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Timely raised" as I watch it being used in the current discussion is a joke, and not even strictly synomym with "there is none". Note that Eisenhower was frustrated over his own plans by Congress when it was his turn sometimes. Thus all of this fuss occuring would be purely a matter of bipartisanship, however why would the nation not allow the Presidency its House majority if the intention was of allowing it to move forward? In the case of Eisenhower Congress might have be wrong because the Sputnik came. "No ceiling" however, compared to the opposite it's exactly the same car but only without a neutral gear. --Askedonty (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that of not being able to spend money. The problem is that of not paying one's bills when they are due. They may impound your fancy car and sell it to the highest bidder. --Lambiam 09:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It is about to plunge into a narrowly focused study of the future and the economies. Short of the trillion coin is the issue liable to be solved with the help of the [IMF] as it's merely an institutional crisis? Yet is it merely an institutional crisis or is it a democracy crisis? Isn't the controversy by itself an indicator of the accomplishments achieved since after the end of the last past global conflict ([6])? I'm also awed seeing Biden placed in the role of a retrograded July '36 General Franco disembarking in front of the statutes of the Federal Reserve. It's behind the curtains of such that potential novel kind of show that I wouldn't see Yellen eager of complying before any other consideration. --Askedonty (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you quote is only about printing money. By 31 U.S. Code § 5112 (k), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to mint and issue platinum bullion coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.^[7] --Lambiam 12:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The administration cannot raise taxes, nor spend money, unless authorized by Congress. Up until now, the federal government has not issued more Treasury bills and notes (debt) than what Congress has authorized. This “debt ceiling” is the subject of the current stand-off. Because we run budget deficits, we need to raise the debt ceiling regularly. You may think this should be automatic, but it isn't; it's a political football that the GOPers love to kick around. The last time we faced this unnecessary crisis (2011), Standard & Poors took the unprecedented step of down-grading the credit rating of the US Government. That raises the cost of financing the government (higher interest rates), which is exactly the opposite of what "some people" say they want to do.

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution say that the debts of the Federal government shall not be questioned. Since the constitution determines the powers of Congress and the Executive branch, and is held in check by the Supreme Court, the constitution supersedes mere law. The debt ceiling is a mere law.

It would be unconstitutional for the Executive Branch to refuse to pay the principle and interest on existing debt, regardless of what mere laws Congress enacts. Since the constitution provides the Treasure with the right to coin money, the easy solution is to create a very, very expensive coin. The (ten?) trillion dollar coin would be deposited into the Treasury's accounts and used to meet the government's obligations. That's probably the least attractive alternative.

> Better would be to come to an agreement that whatever money was authorized to be spent (beyond revenues) in the past comprises an obligation on future congresses to provide sufficient funds for repayment. The drawback is that it requires the GOP to act in the best national interest, something that party has been shy of doing for some time now.

> Better, they openly say, to cut Medicare and Social Security payments to the needy, and let's not talk about the tax breaks for the rich enacted in the early days of the previous (mal)administration.

> Better, they say, is to stop paying soldiers, sailors, airmen, veterans, FBI agents, the Border Patrol, and other federal employees (and let's not talk about the so-called party of national security).

In the meantime, about 80% of government obligations can be covered by recurring revenues (e.g., tax income). Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (the first in that seat who formerly chaired the Federal Reserve) is now doing that.

At least some adults are still doing their jobs!

DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue with the ten trillion dollar coin is that it's a trillion dollars of money created out of thin air and put into circulation. While inflation is a complex matter, there is known to be significant correlation between money supply and inflation. While in modern times, the Fed mostly controls money supply via the Federal Funds Rate, the old fashioned method of just printing more paper and punching more coins and putting it into the economy also has the same effect. Now, I know this silly coin won't be in circulation, but ten trillion more real dollars will suddenly hit the market all at once. The whole system is fungible, and the reaction of the economy of ten trillion dollars of extra money supply essentially instantly is an unpredictable shock to the economy. As the Wikipedia article I just cited states "There is some empirical evidence of a direct relationship between the growth of the money supply and long-term price inflation, at least for rapid increases in the amount of money in the economy." That's why Yellen has said there's no way the Fed would agree to such a scheme; their entire raison d'etre is the management of the money supply, the Fed are literally the experts on how this all works, and this ten trillion dollar coin idea is the equivalent of someone's kid running around a nuclear power plant flipping a bunch of switches at random. You've taken a complex system that it takes years of expertise to know how to carefully run so it doesn't blow the fuck up, and you've blown it the fuck up. This goes back to Greenspan's much earlier testimony cited above: Congress is trying to fix a fiscal issue (an imbalance between taxing revenues and expenditures) with a monetary (money supply) fix. Greenspan was telling them, basically, to stay out of the monetary policy and fix it using the correct tools: Raise revenue with more taxes or cut spending. --Jayron 32 19:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, is raising the debt ceiling equally as harmful economically as the platinum coin stunt, except maybe for the perception of silliness of the gimmickry? To double check my comprehension,do both increase the money supply? Rich (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One dumps ten trillion dollars of currency into the market in a single act; the other slowly trickles that cash into the economy over time (essentially what we've always been doing for decades and decades). --Jayron 32 12:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to raise the debt ceiling is harmful. I recall Ronald Reagan defending the raising of the ceiling because "we have to pay our bills." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both increase the money supply by essentially the same amount. A sudden increase of the MB money supply (if the Feds accept the coin for deposit) won't have an immediate effect; the effect of an equally sudden increase of the M2 money supply by almost 5% might be noticeable – but there is no reason for the increase to be sudden. --Lambiam 09:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yellen has not said there's no way the Fed would agree to such a scheme, at least according to the WSJ article; all she said was that they likely wouldn’t accept the coin for deposit. She also did not state she thinks it's a bad idea (if it works), but merely that it likely won't work, the supposed reason why she thinks the Fed might not accept it being (in her words) especially that it is "something that's a gimmick". --Lambiam 09:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly a "between the lines" reading of Yellen's statements here though... Her words say that, but her tone says "Are you effing kidding me with this shit". She plainly thinks it's silly. --Jayron 32 12:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should not speculate here on whether Yellen really thinks the coin is silly or just prefers the GOP to okay the debt ceiling increase, though if President Biden decided in favor of the coin, I'm "very very very" not positive she would still oppose it. But can the president, unilaterally, or through his Treasury Secretary Yellen, direct the Treasury to mint the coin? To ask in another way, If I understood you right, you said that the Fed asks the Treasury to mint a coin, and the Treasury then mints it? Is that the only lawful way, or can the president lawfully do it?Rich (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Americans are worried about seeming to be silly internationaly with the platinum coin gimmick, at least it's not as silly as other things America has done, and certainly not as evil as America has in the past done, and it could save a hell of a lot of grief. Besides, a the United Kingdom recently did Brexit and a major russian political figure recently suggested Japanese PM commit harikiri. So we(United States) are no more oafish than certain other nations. Rich (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron: Ten trillion more real dollars will suddenly hit the market all at once

Absolutely not. That is simply not what is being proposed. I agree entirely that that would be a terrible idea, cause massive inflation. What would happen is that ten trillion dollars would be put in the Treasury General Account at the Fed. Spending would go on as normal, basically just as if the debt ceiling were raised ten trillion, or as the article I linked to suggested, Biden simply ignored the ceiling as being contrary to the Constitution. This may happen. Biden has surprised before. John Z (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DOR (ex-HK): Better would be to come to an agreement that whatever money was authorized to be spent (beyond revenues) in the past comprises an obligation on future congresses to provide sufficient funds for repayment.

Yes. That's the basic tenor of a long line of precedents going back to John Marshall's court on the inviolability of "government obligations". Mostly or all unanimous, too. Last I swotted up on this, the last and most expansive was Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Leavitt. Our article: it "was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a contract with the Federal Government to reimburse the tribe for health care costs was binding, despite the failure of Congress to appropriate funds for those costs." Appropriations ain't necessary, just dough in the till.

Marshall distinguished way back when between the US system where the constitution sat above the legislature and the greater sovereignty of the British Parliament, which could "constitutionally" decide to break its promises that way. He also noted that the greatest sovereignty imaginable could not erase the past, erase the moral obligation.

The Big Coin, or Robert Hockett's recommendation of Bad to the Bone "Dark Brandon" just ignoring the ceiling are much more sensible than doing anything the Rs want, infinitely more sensible than default. John Z (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Code word for the letter I

India is the official code word for the letter I. But some people who otherwise use the NATO phonetic alphabet use Indigo instead of India. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every organization uses the NATO alphabet as-is, and not every time you see people using words-for-letters are they even trying to use the NATO alphabet, so there is a LOT of variation on this. This seems to indicate that in certain British contexts, some organizations either have, in the past, used Indigo for "I", or some may even do so today. Some sources indicate the RAF may have used it: [8], and some indicate that British police forces may use it: [9]. There may very well be other organizations using their own system that uses Indigo as well. --Jayron 32 16:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Spelling alphabet for a number of alternatives, though Indigo is not listed there. I understand (but cannot provide a source) that when communicating using a phonetic alphabet in Pakistan, it is considered tactless to use India for 'I', and that Indigo is an acceptable alternative. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

Limited-use currency

There was a summit of latin american presidents some days ago, and there was a proposal to make a common currency between Argentina and Brazil. People then compared it to the most familiar example of that, the Euro. So then they clarified that no, Argentina and Brazil would keep their currencies, the Peso and the Real. This new currency (let's name it "real peso" to ease the discussion) would be used only in international trade.

Meaning: Alice from Argentina wants to buy a foo from Bob, from Brazil. Alice uses her Pesos to buy Real Pesos and pay the foo with them. Bob gets those real pesos in Brazil and changes them for Reales. And that's all. You can't use the peso real at either country to pay for things in local stores, taxes or whatever.

So, the question: is there an example of such a currency somewhere else? A "special" currency that is no country's national currency? Cambalachero (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Foreign exchange certificate. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when the Soviet Union engaged in international trade, the instruments used basically had no relationship whatsoever to ordinary ruble bills and kopek coins used in daily life inside the Soviet Union. AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another obvious example is a bullion coin which is a tradable repository of precious metals that has a legal face value as currency that is a tiny percentage of the value of the coin as melted down as bullion. The face value is artificial in most senses, except as a government endorsement of the weight and purity of the precious metal (usually gold). Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The International Monetary Fund uses "Special Drawing Rights" as an internal unit of account, though these are not a currency that is actually circulated anywhere. Related: Bancor. The international dollar is another special-case unit of account. --47.147.118.55 (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Large denominations of United States currency for US examples. Many of the large denomination currencies issued in the U.S. were not intended for public daily use. As noted in that article, the 1934 denominations from $100 up to $10,000 were only in use for intragovernmental transactions, such as between branches of the Federal Reserve system. By the mid 1940s, these had ceased to be useful and have mostly been taken out of circulation, except the few held by museums or collectors. --Jayron 32 13:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, the new currency is to be called the Sur (we already have a very thin article), which would function as a reserve currency between the two countries, presumably displacing the US Dollar in that role. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spesmiloj? Steloj? There are also the regional currencies. --Error (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap iron call

What instrument is used in this audio file - is it a trumpet, a bugle, or something else? Or impossible to say?

From a musicological PoV, how should we describe the notes - are they "atonal", "discordant", or what? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is neither a trumpet nor a bugle, but a bit of pipe being sounded, perhaps with a trumpet mouthpiece, or perhaps not even that. The notes are part of the harmonic series as you'd hear from a natural horn. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of an añafil

It sounds better than an añafil. See also natural trumpet. --Lambiam 09:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country abbreviations used as unofficial, but usual country codes

Although the Central African Republic has a consistent 3-letter country code CAF among institutions (exception: FIFA, here CTA), many sources use the abbreviation CAR as de facto country code. This appears similar to FRG formerly used for West Germany (BRD in German). What other examples for unofficial, but usual country codes like this are there? --KnightMove (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean code or abbreviation? There's a very important difference. A country code is created by a specific body for a specific purpose, as a means of standardization or something like that. For example, the ISO 3166-1 or the EU NUTS codes, or the Olympic codes. Various other organizations may adopt these codes for various reasons, or not. However, this is quite distinct from common use abbreviations for a country. If someone abbreviates the Central African Republic as "CAR", they could be doing so because using initials is a common means of creating abbreviations in English. They possibly aren't even trying to follow a "code" standard, they're just following good old natural English conventions. In the U.S. for example, ZIP codes have been standard state abbreviations for decades now, but many people still use other abbreviations for states in common writing and speech, "Mass." rather than "MA" for Massachusetts or "Penna." rather than "PA" for Pennsylvania. This seems like no different... --Jayron 32 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZIP codes are numeric, as the article says. Jayron means the state abbreviations introduced for use with ZIP codes. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that. Sorry I misspoke there. --Jayron 32 12:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that difference, however, in practice, lines between codes and abbreviations are blurred. For example, a documentary in German language on the match Austria v West Germany (1978 FIFA World Cup) calls the participants "AUT vs. BRD". AUT is the official code for Austria (ISO, IOC and FIFA alike), while BRD was no official code in any body - but still commonly used in mixture with official country codes, as it was much more understandable and such much more common in German than "FRG". It is examples like these I am looking for. ..KnightMove (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and CAR is also used in the same way, although it seems, not that frequently. --KnightMove (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that in such situations what is happening is not "using an abbreviation as a de facto code" but is instead an orgaanization using its own list of abbreviations bt which has one or more abbrevitions that match the ISO code. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again about the losses in the Pacific War

In the discussion of the article, for some reason, the participants diligently ignore me, I provide links about all US losses in the war with Japan, while only US COMBAT losses are indicated there. All edits are corrected, you see, precisely because the Ministry of Defense is less authoritative than Clodfelter. Here are the links that the US losses are not delusional 90 thousand killed, but unfortunately 160 thousand killed and missing. Above figures based on Army Battle Casualties and Non-battle Deaths in World War II - http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/index.html US Navy Personnel in World War II: Service and Casualty Statistics http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/ww2_statistics.htm Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is considered primary, not the preferred WP:SECONDARY source. Both you and Micheal Clodfelter have looked at US government reports such as Army Battle Casualties etc., and you and Clodfelter have independently arrived at casualty figures for the Pacific War. Clodfelter has the great advantage of being published by McFarland and Company. That's why we go with his figures. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, based on a look at Talk:Pacific War and elsewhere on the Ref Desk, if you are able to pull together a variety of appropriate sources to support your position, you will have to lay out a clear through-line between them in a single place. For instance, clear sourcing explaining that personnel who are classified as "missing" are separate and additional from personnel who are classified as "killed" -- this is key to your contention and it's not at all clear to the casual observer that this should be the case; an individual can be known to have been killed and yet their body be missing. For example, at some point you have a link to an unreliable source that in turn links to the American Battle Monuments Commission that in turn describes MIA totals as including those buried at sea, which is clearly a not-insignificant number for the Pacific Theater of WW2. Pointing to numbers and doing math is not compelling data without the context that informs those numbers. — Lomn 16:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that the article about the Pacific War indicates all the losses of Japan is normal, but Klodfelter indicates only combat losses, that is, the data is a priori underestimated. At the same time, my source speaks of combat and non-combat losses, and it is not Private John from Ohio who speaks about this, but the Department of Defense. Well, okay, let the American eye continue to be pleased with the data on underestimated losses, since no one wants to point out combat and non-combat losses in the article so stubbornly. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, lay out your whole case, supported, referenced, and explained, in one place (per the talk page comment of 18 Dec, and others). Note, for instance, that your Navy link at the top of this question is a 404 page. Secondly, lay out this case on the talk page rather than continuing to revert the active article. Perhaps there is space to build a case for listing non-combat theater losses separately from combat losses. You may also gain support if you're able to build a case that cross-references other articles; if the overarching World War II casualties article uses sources that include all casualties of interest and provides an appropriate theater breakout, referencing those sources -- and noting that the goal is to increase consistency within Wikipedia -- will likely be better received than continuing in your present course. — Lomn 17:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to raise the issue in the discussion while there is cold silence. Without waiting for an answer, I began to edit it myself, a minute later all my works were deleted, apparently the Ministry of Defense for the Americans is not an authoritative source. The fact is that in the article before that there was a figure of 160 thousand dead with an intelligent source. And now 90 thousand. Here they are the miracles of the American army, every year there are fewer and fewer losses. In a year, it will generally turn out that all the losses of the United States in the war with Japan are one cut soldier, lol. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that the sources are not authoritative, it's that no one knows what you are trying to do; you're going about it in a confusing manner that makes it hard to understand your issues with the article as it is currently laid out. Use the article talk page to propose the changes you wish to make, being very clear and deliberate about what text you wish to write, what you intend to replace, what sources justify the changes, etc. If you've been making your changes to the article in the way you've been asking questions here, it is entirely understandable why others cannot figure out what you are trying to do. --Jayron 32 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The DOD report (not MOD; correct terminology will help persuade other editors that you are in fact interpreting sources appropriately) you linked on US Army casualties notes on pp. 1-2 the issues with fully characterizing the true disposition of non-battle deaths; further, the definition of "non-battle deaths" provided on p.4 presents two different scopes of the term, depending on where in the document you are looking. That sort of acknowledged incomplete effort and potential for confusion may be the reason that it's not (or is no longer) being used as a significant source in the article. There's certainly plenty there to call into question whether or not the geographic assignments of non-battle deaths have significant merit. — Lomn 18:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want all US losses in the war with Japan to be indicated, since only combat losses are indicated in the article. I tried to chat in the discussion of the article, but there is an ignore. And so I would like to return the previous link about 160 thousand deaths of Americans, since it more objectively displays a picture of the bloodshed of the war in the Pacific Ocean Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have a standalone article on Casualty figures, but even a cursory glance through World War II casualties demonstrates that it is difficult to define such figures in the first place, and therefore difficult to give precise ones. Do you include just regular-forces combatants killed directly by enemy action, or add deaths of local irregular combatants fighting alongside them, and deaths from diseases caught in the war theatre (sometimes the leading cause of death), and deaths caused by accidents such as military vehicle crashes in the combat zone (one of which nearly killed my father), and accidental deaths outside the theatre of combat during training or other military activites (which happen even in peacetime), etc., etc? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.82.82 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the crux of the problem. Every source is going to use their own methodology to define a "casualty" or even a "death caused by war", and there is no definitive way to define these things. Getting information from different sources is going to lead to different results given that each source has their own definitions they are working under, and they don't always work well together. --Jayron 32 12:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it’s a pity you can’t return the last source about 160 thousand dead Americans, in my opinion it is much closer to the truth. And so you are right, World War II is the apogee of conflicting data on losses.In my opinion, all the same, the Pacific War was the bloodiest, both for the Americans and for their enemies, but oh well, this is my opinion, but I'm not a historian. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most bloody front for the United States and its enemies in World War II, I mean. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You kinda missed my point, like entirely. Multiple different numbers can both be true if they each measuring different things. Just "How many Americans died in the Pacific Theatre during World War II". Died how? How are you counting American deaths? Killed in direct action? Died from infection due to injuries? Died of diseases like Yellow Fever or Malaria? Died in prison camps? Soldiers only or civilians too? What about sailors that fell overboard because they got drunk and slipped on deck? What about soldiers that went AWOL and disappeared? When do we count them as dead? Depending on who any one source counts as "American deaths in the Pacific theatre" they're going to arrive at different numbers. Different true numbers I might even add. The fact that two sources give different values doesn't make one of them wrong. Different is not a synonym for wrong. --Jayron 32 19:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would take into account all the deaths, regardless of whether the American died from a Japanese bullet or from the fact that he fell drunk from the deck into an insole. It’s just that with the same Japanese losses indicated in the article, both combat and non-combat losses are clearly and clearly indicated, but with the American ones such a confusion. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from 2 different coutries in the same war may use different criteria and classificatios. And a single country might use different standards in different wars. The sort of definitive numbers you are wanting probably aren't possible.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

Diameter of the circumscribed circle of a Canadian Loonie

The Loonie article contains a bit of a contradiction:

 The coin's outline is an 11-sided Reuleaux polygon. Its diameter of 26.5 mm...

A Reuleaux polygon does not have a diameter. Instead, it has a width. In the context of coins, the Circumscribed circle of a Reuleaux polygon does indeed have a diameter. This leads me to believe that the 26.5 mm measure may be referring to the diameter of the Circumscribed circle instead.

But I found this site which claims that the width of the Loonie is 26.5 mm[10]. If that's indeed the case, then the diameter of the Circumscribed circle would be slightly larger than 26.5 mm.

So which is true here?

A. The Loonie has a width of 26.5 mm (and a larger circumscribed circle diameter).

B. The Loonie has a circumscribed circle diameter of 26.5 mm (and a smaller width).

Helian James (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the size difference smaller than 0.05 mm so that it doesn't matter? Anyone have a handy formula? Rmhermen (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The size difference is very tiny. User:Jacobolus on the Math reference desk just solved the ratio to be approximately 1.0103[11]. So the difference is approximately 0.27 mm. Helian James (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One common mathematical definition for the diameter of an arbitrary bounded shape is the maximal distance between any two points on its boundary. Equivalently (for planar shapes), it is the width of the least square in which the shape can rotate. There is no common mathematical definition for the width of an arbitrary shape, but a plausible definition is the width of a rectangle of least height in which the shape will fit. So the diameter of a 3×4 rectangle equals 5, while its width would be 4. These two notions coincide for circles. For Reuleaux polygons, these notions coincide too, which is in fact a defining feature. --Lambiam 08:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, mathematicians love to generalize the meanings of words. You say the figure doesn't have a diameter; I look at "Generalized Diameter" on Mathworld and say that for this curve of constant width, what you (Helian) call the width may also legitimately be termed the diameter. I certainly assumed that what the Mint calls the diameter here was the width. But I was assuming.

Second, I just took two loonies from my wallet and measured them using two different household rulers. In each case the width (from one vertex to the opposite curve) was clearly very close to 26 mm: I would estimate it at 26.1 mm. So I wonder if maybe the 26.5 mm figure does indeed relate to the circumscribed circle. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--142.112.220.65 (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the margin of error in the construction of household rulers and the tolerances for the size of a coin in circulation, which can get worn and dinged in various ways, anything within a half a millimeter in either direction is functionally the same; Which is to say that 26.1 and 26.5 are going to be essentially the same in this context. --Jayron 32 12:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a ~~doctor~~ Canadian in the room who has access to a metric vernier caliper? --Lambiam 16:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 26.5 mm figure comes from the Royal Canadian Mint who actually make the thing. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. My point was mainly that 26.1mm (obtain by sticking a loonie next to a wooden ruler) and 26.5mm are not functionally different measurements, given the tolerances of the measuring method in question. --Jayron 32 19:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "wooden"; they were transparent plastic rulers, which are easier to use for this sort of measurement. And the difference between 26.1 and 26.5 mm is large enough that error in the ruler does not seem likely to account for it. See also Lambiam's item below. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, though, whether the Mint used the term diameter in the sense defined in our article Metric space as the "diameter of a metric space" and at MathWorld as "generalized diameter", or did they perhaps use it in the sense of the diameter of the circumscribed circle? While the difference between 26.1 and 26.5 mm is small, it is not beyond the precision of generally available accurate measuring instruments to tell the difference. --Lambiam 00:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Canuck with a metric vernier caliper says: both my 1989 and my 2012 Loonies measure 26.45 to 26.50 mm from the flats to the various diametrically opposed points. Per the Canadian Mint site (thanks user:Alansplodge) both of these Loonies are listed as having a "diameter" of 26.5 mm. Let the analysis begin. I don't know that this is going to help, since without a reliable source as to what the Mint means by "diameter", all we can say is that the Mint specifies a "diameter" of 26.5 mm. Meters (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It means we can now all enjoy a restful sleep, no longer tossing and turning worried that the Royal Canadian Mint abused the mathematical term diameter in a non-mathematical way. Since the Susan B. Anthony dollar has the same diameter but is circular and thus smaller than a Loonie circularified by circumscription, it follows that a Loonie in a stack of Susans has points sticking out by approximately 0.27 mm, which one should be able to notice by the fine sense of touch in one's fingertips. --Lambiam 11:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book I can't remember the name of

There's a book I remember reading a while ago but I can't remember the name of. It is about a man who worked in the PR industry and his boss didn't like him, and the man ends up getting fired. He has two daughters and swears at them as they watch a special on Comedy Central. The book goes into detail on his job search as he looks for a new job. It talks about how he was in Africa somewhere and had guns pulled on him at a border crossing, but his group got out of it because one of them spoke French and offered the border guards a carton of cigarettes. If I remember correctly it had a forward or review by Mika Brzezinski. In the end the guy doesn't get a job but starts his own PR firm. Any help? Therapyisgood (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, it was Reset: How to Beat the Job-Loss Blues and Get Ready for Your Next Act. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

African American names ending with -us

I've noticed a significant number of African Americans with given names ending with -us as if in an ancient Roman fashion: Cassius Clay, Marcus Allen, Titus Bramble, Demetrius Jackson, Tadarrius Bean, etc. Could this be explained somehow? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See African-American names. It's a complex set of etymologies without a singular source, as can be seen under the "influences and conventions" section. For example, the "European and Biblical names" notes that "it is also still common for African Americans to use biblical, historic, or European names. Daniel, Christopher, Michael, David, James, Joseph, and Matthew were among the most common names for African-American boys in 2013" (bold mine). Cassius and Titus being common historical names, and Marcus also common enough among males of European descent (of which I have known several Marcuses). For the others such as Demetrius of Teadarrius, see the section of that article titled "Afrocentric and inventive names". In his dictionary of black names, Cenoura asserts that in the early 21st century, black names are "unique names that come from combinations of two or more names, names constructed with common prefixes and suffixes...'conjugated' with a formula..." So a name like "Tadarrius" could have been constructed by starting with "Darius" (an historical and Biblical name, see Darius the Great), with the prefix "Ta-". It looks from doing some google research that the book Black Names Matter by Bobby Cenoura may have some good, well-researched information on the topic as well. There are a number of other sources for further exploration in the Wikipedia article as well. --Jayron 32 19:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women working at lunch counters

Something is confusing me. In regards to any Woolworth lunch counter, was a woman working at one regarded as a lunch lady?2603:7000:8100:9390:A8F4:C049:6AB3:6D9A (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term ”Lunch lady” is usually associated with those serving at school cafeterias, not commercial establishments. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[12]Dinner lady?
Sleigh (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Tuck shop arms", or "tuck shop lady arms" has some currency Down Here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

hedge funds and/or investment banks

Do fellow employees at investment banks and hedge funds like each other? A movie (The Big Short)that I watched made me think they do not. And a friend who is in college studying finance also says that employees at Goldman Sachs don't like each other.Rich (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand your question.Rich (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other businesses or corporations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

good point, could be other industries and companies and associations that have colleagues that dislike each other, like Comcast and the GOP. Rich (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unavoidably, some will like each other and some won't. One may expect employees of such utterly materialistic and profit-driven institutions to be somewhat aligned with the nature of their work environment and care more about climbing up the corporate ladder than the well-being of their co-workers. But this can only be a tendency, not a fast rule. --Lambiam 10:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That shows a lot of wisdom:-). any news reports, exposes, bloggers who are disgruntled employees etc? Rich (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

Case Closed

Please, can you help me to find the name of this prestigious French medail? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.141.247 (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The closest match would be the Order of Agricultural Merit. Not a perfect match, but close. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information Hazard from a Legal Perspective

Are any laws or international agreements currently in force that can be applied to information hazards? Or would that be a restriction on freedom of speech? 2A02:908:424:9D60:F130:E2CE:9709:A67D (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, a guy who uploaded the blueprint for a 3D-printed gun was accused of exporting weapons without a license.

There is also the Wassenaar Agreement upon the export of encryption technology. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a complicated topic. For the free speech aspects in US law regarding encryption software, see Bernstein v. United States. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Papal regnal numbers

Are regnal numbers of popes assigned afterwards when two or more popes take the same name? Our list shows that popes whose whose regnal names weren't picked up by later popes, such as Zachary, Donus and Agatho, do not have the I number. Does it mean that all other popes originally didn't have the number upon election, because no one knew then if the name would be taken by another pope? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the section Regnal_number#"The_first" not sufficient to answer your question? --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For people who were alive in 1952, Elizabeth II's accession transformed Elizabeth of England into Elizabeth I (she was not usually referred to that way before 1952). AnonMoos (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul I (elected 1978) must have had an inkling he wasn't long for this world (33 days) and that his successor would use the same regnal name, since "... he was the first pope to add the regnal number "I", designating himself "the First"." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He took the (double) name to honour two preceding mentors. Perhaps he just wanted to encourage his successor(s) to do likewise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

USA: Are banks with low interests in savings/CDs making a lot of money now?

Before I get to the example, look at Capital 1. Last Sept., their interest rate for savings account was 2%. Then 2.15% Oct., 2.15% last Nov., hit 3% last December. Currently at 3.3%.

Then, look at Chase bank, their savings interest rate is .01%, Bank of America .03%. This means Capital 1 is paying >100x more interest than Chase. Therefore, banks like Chase are making a lot of money right now? What should be more same to me - is the interest people are paying banks for a loan like for homes, so. And Capital 1 is more of an on-line bank, with fewer branches, so they can afford to pay higher interest imo. Chase bank having too many branches is a lot of employees (and assistant managers etc) to pay for. So, I'm predicting banks like Chase are actually making revenue now. Could be from recent lawsuits they lost historically too.

Also note that, a month ago, both banks interest for 5 year CDs was > than 4 years CD > 2 and 1 years. Recently, both banks changed that, so now, the 2 year CD is higher interest than 5 year CDs. To me, that means banks are predicting interests will go down almost as soon as the Federal Reserve stops raising interest rates. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]